Standing Committee B

[David Taylor in the Chair]

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill

New Clause 16 - Information about passengers

'In paragraph 27B of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (c.77) (control on entry: provision of information about passengers) after sub-paragraph (4) insert— 
 ''(4A) The officer may ask the carrier to provide a copy of all or part of a document that relates to a passenger and contains passenger information.'''.—[Beverley Hughes.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The new clause reintroduces an issue that the Committee discussed previously on Opposition amendments. It concerns the deliberate destruction or disposal of passports and travel documents, which frustrates immigration control and asylum processing. People who deliberately destroy or dispose of their documents do so to conceal their true identity, nationality and citizenship. That obviously makes processing difficult and, if claims fail, it frustrates the removal process. 
 The problem is significant and has been discussed before. We need effective ways to deter people from deliberately disposing of or destroying their documents. The power provided in the new clause to require carriers to copy passengers' documents before they embark for the United Kingdom would be such a deterrent, and I was pleased to note the broad support in principle for the idea during the debate on Opposition amendments to clause 2. 
 The new clause allows an immigration officer to require a carrier to provide either a full or partial copy of any documents relating to a passenger and containing passenger information, and that term is defined in section 27B of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 and the Immigration (Passenger Information) Order 2000. I wrote to you, Mr. Taylor, and to Mrs. Roe with details of the way in which the new clause would operate, with copies to Committee members. I hope that that was helpful. 
 I made it clear in that letter that immigration officers would be able to make requests under the new power in respect of ships or aircraft expected to arrive in the UK. The request can relate either to particular ships or aircraft of the carrier, or to all a carrier's ships or aircraft. That request will have to be in writing and state the date on which it ceases to have effect, which 
 may not be more than six months from the date on which the request is made. Only if a request is made under the new clause would a carrier be obliged to provide copies of the passenger's documents. There would be no blanket requirement imposed on all carriers to provide copies of all documents of all passengers they carry to the United Kingdom. We intend, if necessary, to use the statutory power. I hope that the voluntary schemes that I have identified will work, but if it is necessary to use the statutory power, we intend to do so in a very targeted and proportionate way.

Andrew Turner: The Minister referred to ships and aircraft, but not to Eurostar or other land-based vehicles.

Beverley Hughes: Yes, the provision will cover Eurostar trains coming into this country from another country.
 If a carrier fails to comply with a request under the new power without reasonable excuse, the carrier would commit an offence under section 27B(4) of the Immigration Act 1971. That offence is punishable on summary conviction with a fine of not more than level five on the standard scale, which I understand is £5,000 maximum, or with imprisonment for not more than six months, or with both. 
 I believe that the whole Committee has acknowledged that the problem of asylum seekers destroying their documents to frustrate the process is real, immediate and significant. Although the voluntary co-operation of carriers may provide a solution, there can be no guarantee at this stage, while we are debating legislation, that it will be effective without some form of statutory back-up. As I said in my letter, we shall have two trials. They will be comprehensive, and the lessons we learn will be thoroughly evaluated. I hope that that will provide the basis for the continuation of a voluntary scheme. If not, we shall need the provision to address the matter if a voluntary scheme proves to be ineffective. 
 I also want to make it clear that carriers have existing responsibilities to ensure that the passengers whom they carry to the UK have proper documentation and that they should provide information on passengers to an immigration officer on request. The clause and any voluntary scheme will simply develop those existing responsibilities. 
 Some carriers already copy documents in certain circumstances, usually of their own volition, in order to minimise the chance of having a carriers' liability charge imposed. Some carriers have acknowledged that it is in their own business interest to copy documents. That does not apply to everyone, and there is a need to build on the current position so that we can obtain copies of documents in all cases in which intelligence tells us that document destruction or disposal is a significant problem. 
 As I said, the clause will not introduce a blanket requirement for all carriers, but one that is designed to be utilised in a targeted way on specific routes and at 
 the specific request of an immigration officer. The provision will not prove to be an excessive burden on carriers. 
 On the subject of consultation, we are in discussion with the carriers about how such a provision would work in practice. We are working on two trial schemes, and I am sure that they will help us to resolve some of the technical and other issues to which we need solutions. They will also demonstrate the respective cost and time implications to the carriers. We shall not consider implementing the power, which would have to be made by a commencement order, unless the trial evaluation demonstrated that it was practical to gather the data at reasonable cost and that a voluntary scheme operated by the carriers proved not to be an effective proposition. Given my explanation, and the further details sent out in the letter, I hope that hon. Members are assured that the power is necessary.

Humfrey Malins: The Minister was right to say at the beginning of her remarks that destruction of documents by those who subsequently seek asylum is a serious matter. She was right to say that the Committee as a whole felt that that was the case. We support any measure to punish severely those who destroy their documents. It is a wicked thing to do. Arising out of that problem, the Minister moved on to the proper premise that copying of documents would improve the situation.
 However, as I have said before, although we utterly support the principle of copying documents, there are logistical and cost issues from the carrier's point of view, which I hope the Government will address properly. Indeed, there is a better argument for putting the burden of the duty on the passengers themselves, and if the Government are determined that the carriers should carry out the task, there are strong arguments for saying that any costs should be borne by the Government. 
 I would like to say a few words on behalf of the carriers today, and I would be grateful if the Committee would take them on board. None of the carriers seeks to frustrate the object of the clause, but they have serious concerns on the Government's governance of the issue and the clarity of their thinking. I shall pose seven questions to the Minister, which I hope she will deal with fully. If she does not, perhaps she would be kind enough to write to the Committee covering those matters. 
 Why were the affected operators given only six working days to respond to the Home Office's initial proposal, including a request to calculate compliance costs? Given that the Bill has been some time in the planning, why was the 12-week consultation norm set out in the code of practice on written consultation flouted so badly? Given that our airlines have facilities at some 200 airports around the world, each with different check-in and terminal configurations, how could the Minister expect that a proper assessment of proportionality of costs and benefits could be carried out in that time? 
 Why has a detailed regulatory impact assessment not been prepared covering all the copying options that might be considered? Surely the House and the Committee should not agree to the new clause until the Cabinet Office requirement has been met, and there has been an opportunity to scrutinise the costs involved. In any event, how could such a regulatory impact assessment be prepared, given that the Home Office has been given costs only for copying and that carriers have not been consulted on estimates of the financial and operational impact of other copying options? 
 The carriers find it difficult to accept the Minister's assurance that an assessment will be produced before the reserve power is exercised, as Parliament will have had to agree to the power before then. Furthermore, although the Minister told the Committee on 13 January that the power would be switched on through secondary legislation, which would also have required an assessment, new clause 16 does not contain any order-making power. The Minister seems to be saying, ''We're not quite sure what we want to do, how much it will cost or how burdensome it will be, but take us on trust and give us the power to do it anyway.'' 
 Will the Minister set out the workable copying options? It is understood that three airlines will be conducting a pilot at Johannesburg airport, but what will they be piloting? If it is not shown to be operationally and financially feasible, what other means of copying would be required? It is clear that photocopying at check-in desks is unrealistic. Airlines have calculated that copying every passport would add 5.6 hours to the check-in time of a 767 flight, to which should be added the cost of providing copiers at thousands of desks around the world, assuming that they could be accommodated in the confined space available. 
 On other options, few of the thousands of desks around the world are equipped with optical readers, and the bulk of passports held by potential asylum seekers or illegal immigrants are probably not readable. On-board document copying was considered by the Home Office, but it cannot cover cases in which documents are destroyed between the gate and boarding the aircraft. It was suggested earlier that airports might provide a central facility for passengers to copy their papers. On 13 January, the Minister said that 
 ''if the voluntary scheme does not work, we can switch on a statutory power''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 13 January 2004; c. 139.] 
The carriers, and the Committee, need to know what will be required if the pilot does not succeed. 
 The Minister has been made aware that the Foreign Secretary recently wrote to the United States Secretary of State to highlight the fact that the systems to support a similar passenger information collection scheme planned by the US authorities are not capable of coping without severe disruption. After the Foreign Office raised concerns about a proposed US scheme, it is ironic that Home Office has proposed a procedure that will have a similar impact on airline operations. 
 We understand that the domestic laws of a number of states prohibit the copying of overseas passports. Most passenger handling at overseas airports is contracted by UK airlines to national handling agents. How could a carrier make its agents comply with a requirement in breach of their own law? Will the Minister undertake that the power will not be activated until the Government have negotiated a satisfactory modus vivendi with the states concerned? Will she also undertake that the power will not be exercised until agreement has been reached with carriers that it is operationally and financially realistic for the requirement to be put in place at the airport or port in question? 
 Will the Minister follow the example of her colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and agree that the cost of installing any copying equipment will be borne by the Government? In a written statement in connection with the fitting of satellite tracking equipment to fishing vessels to comply with EU requirements, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: 
''Since such terminals may not be used by vessel owners or masters for business purposes . . . DEFRA has decided to meet the costs of fitting tamper proof terminals''.—[Official Report, 9 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 84WS.] 
He added that it would go a significant way to removing an additional financial burden on the industry. Given that carriers will be required to collect information on behalf of the immigration and nationality directorate but will derive no security or commercial benefit from give it, the carriers hope that the Minister will give a commitment to adopt the DEFRA precedent. 
 I recall our debate on this matter on 13 January. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) spoke about supermarkets collecting consumer information through loyalty cards and said that because of that, it should be possible and worth while for carriers to do the same. Any such argument is based on the slight misconception that as airlines profit from carrying passengers, they should bear the responsibility for recording the data. However, the data required by the immigration and nationality directorate is of no commercial value to carriers. If it were, they would no doubt enthusiastically invest in data capture, as the supermarkets have done through their loyalty cards. Therefore, there is a commercial advantage to the supermarkets, but not to the airlines. As the data would be collected by the carriers as an agent of the Government, it must surely be fair that the Government should bear the cost. Similarly, if airlines were responsible for data collection for IND, they should logically bear the cost of the Customs and other immigration facilities at an airport. Therefore, I hope that the carriers' point is deemed to be reasonable. 
 I appreciate that I have set out a number of queries for the Minister on behalf of the carriers. I am sure that she will do her best to answer as many as possible, but I end with this proposition. It is entirely right that we should try to address the mischief of people tearing up their documents, and one excellent way would be for copies of such documents to be made, but are we not 
 rushing matters? Is there not a good case for expecting passengers to copy their documents before they get to an airport or at an airport? It would not be a burden for the normal traveller. On the other hand, if the Government are to say that the carriers have to have a role, is there not a good argument for the Government reimbursing the cost? Indeed, there is a precedent. 
 I and the carriers are concerned that the Government are rushing through proposals that could not only be commercially very damaging and unfair to the carriers, but could prove difficult to operate efficiently in practice without causing chaos and problems for our airports.

Mark Oaten: I agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). I, too, cannot have it both ways. If I am prepared to accept the need for a slight tightening up of the regime on one aspect of asylum, we must consider systems to reduce the number of individuals who hide their documents in this way. Therefore, I do not rule out what the Government are suggesting: there is some merit in looking at the system. However, we must get the balance right. Is the problem being caused by the arrival of individuals in this country without documents so great, so complex and so expensive for us that we are prepared to put in place a system that will cause considerable problems throughout the world and difficulties for our own citizens trying to return to this country?
 If someone were to impose this system on me as a traveller, how would I feel about it? I have concerns about the proposals on practical grounds. Can the Minister explain when the pilots will start, how they will be assessed and in what form she envisages reporting back to Parliament on their success? Will she also remind us how many people come into this country without documents, so that we can put the problem into perspective and reflect on the inconvenience that will be caused to many more people. We need to contrast and compare the figures. 
 Can the Minister comment on other examples of this process in the rest of the world? She suggests pilots, but does such a scheme operate anywhere else? If so, can we learn from the way in which it is operated in other countries and see whether we can learn from problems elsewhere and find better ways of doing it? 
 Instead of assuming that the documentation must be copied before individuals board a plane, have the Government considered a system that requires a document or card to be completed on the plane itself? One sometimes fills in landing cards on a plane. Could any use be made of those? People on a plane are a captive audience, so there is less chance of delays than before they board. 
 My main concern relates to what we are going to do with the information if it is collected and available. If an individual arrives in this country and comes through to immigration without any documentation, will the first course of action be to call the country that they came from to try to track down the airline, and 
 within that airline, or airport, somebody who may have a pile of documents, and then to try to link the documents to that individual? 
 I am just not clear how that would work in practice. There is the matter of clarifying who is who in that process, and the question of what would happen with the considerable time delays involved. If an individual arrives without a document after a 12-hour flight someone in immigration will presumably try to track down someone at the airport, but the time delays may mean that there is no one there, and that they get no response other than a phone message telling them that no one will be in the office for another 10 hours or so. What would happen then? What would happen to the individual without the document? What position would they be in at that point? Clarifying what has gone on will not be a quick process. 
 The advantage of the system is that getting a document faxed through would be speedy. However, in practice, with the time delays involved in international travel, and taking into account the fact that, whenever I try to call an airport or work my way through an airport system, it is extraordinary complex and confusing, I can envisage situations in which it would be hard to track down that information and get it sent through. 
 I hope that the Minister will give some thought to the practical problem of how useful the system will be. If we can come up with a system that can be justified and does not cause delays, and that I can genuinely be convinced would make a practical difference, we would certainly support that. I ask that we do not put something in place that will make only a small difference on a number of occasions, and which will cause a lot of chaos and problems for passengers, and which could give rise to a lot of costs to the industry. We just might be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Tom Harris: The Minister began by talking of the immediate problem that the Government face in terms of the number of asylum seekers entering the country without documents, having destroyed them on route. According to my memories of discussions of similar clauses earlier in our proceedings, it was generally agreed that a new mechanism must be introduced to address the problem.
 I hesitate to make any criticism of the hon. Member for Woking, who has been unfailingly courteous to me and other Members during the proceedings of the Committee. He is also my mother's favourite Tory. To digress briefly, he spoke after me when I made my maiden speech in June 2001. My mother and father were in the Gallery, and my mum said afterwards what a nice man he was, even though he was a Tory. I risk incurring by mother's wrath by suggesting that he is being a bit mischievous in relation to the new clause. The Conservative party never fails to criticise the Government for not taking action when it is necessary, and yet whenever the Government propose something that has a consensus behind it, as this new clause does, 
 he comes up with a reasonable but long list of reasons why we should, if not reject the proposals, at least delay almost every aspect of the new process. 
 We have to return to what the Minister said at the beginning. This is an immediate problem that demands solutions in as short a time as possible. That does not mean that we have to cut corners or impose unnecessary burdens on people. However, given the will of the House and this Committee, it is disappointing that the Conservatives always object to the detail, if not to the principle of a clause. I do not believe for a second that with the exponential increase in the sophistication of security technology at almost every airport in the world during the past few years, the introduction of photocopying facilities would create an insurmountable problem to any airline. The hon. Member for Woking may have made his points in all sincerity, but we must look at the bigger picture and get on with the reasonable proposal in the new clause. 
 The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) referred to the considerable inconvenience that the new clause may cause. Being strip-searched with a pair of Marigolds may be a major inconvenience, but being asked to surrender a passport for photocopying is not. For me it would be a minor inconvenience. I am not sure that I would even call it an inconvenience to be asked to surrender documents for photocopying, which would take a few seconds at most. I hear what the hon. Member for Woking is saying about the delay that some airline carriers have claimed would be caused, but I do not accept that. It behoves the airline industry to come up with a more streamlined system than the one it seems to be talking about. I do not believe that there would be major inconvenience, as the hon. Member for Winchester is claiming. 
 The airlines do not oppose the measure in principle, but they have concerns and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will assure the Committee that, although it is not in the Bill, any airline that has that responsibility imposed upon it will be fully consulted before the start date of any pilot, and certainly before any order is made to make the system compulsory. We must take the airline and other carriers with us and ensure that they are on board. The only way in which to do that is to ensure that the consultation is full and frank. 
 On a technical point, will my right hon. Friend explain how the new clause will affect clause 2, which makes it an offence for anyone to arrive at an airport without documents and provides for them to be charged with not having those documents? Would that be a criminal offence? Would it be a defence that the carrier has a copy of the documents? If the individual does not have a copy of those documents at their first interview with an immigration officer, when would the photocopied documents be presented to the immigration service? Would it be only when the matter came to court, or would there be some mechanism for having the photocopied documents presented at an earlier stage, thereby avoiding the necessity for a prosecution, or would the fact that they turned up without documents mean that they committed an offence and that prosecution would follow? 
 With those caveats, I look forward to my right hon. Friend's summing up.

Angela Watkinson: I have listened carefully to the Minister. The Government are absolutely right to try to address the problem of documents that are destroyed before or on arrival. As she was speaking, some problems suggested themselves to me. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) referred to inconvenience and I agree with him that copying a passport would not be a serious inconvenience. I would not worry about that, but I would worry about the security of that copy and where its final destination would be. Will the Minister say a little more about how the carrier will ensure the security of the copies of documents that it has collected? For example, would there be a regulation a regulation concerning how long they should be retained and whether they should be destroyed after a certain time? Most of those documents will be legal, and will be carried by passengers who were travelling legitimately and not committing any offence.
 Will there be a requirement to ensure that the information on them—names, numbers and copies of photographs—is not accessible to others who may seek to misuse them in some way? If that did happen, who would be responsible for those copies of documents leading to an offence being committed? If the Minister would say something more on these issues, it might settle my mind.

Andrew Turner: The Minister's clause deals only partially with widespread concern. I am not convinced that she has explained it in sufficient detail for us to be confident that it will deal effectively with all routes by which people might reach this country, some of whom would undoubtedly have destroyed their documents. Why is the Minister not being more robust about the matter? It seems clear to me that there will be some inconvenience to travellers and passengers, but no passenger has to arrive at an airport—as I frequently do—less than half an hour before the departure time. Any passenger can arrive earlier, any arrangements can be made for the copying of documents, and those documents should be required of every passenger on every carrier coming to the United Kingdom.
 Even if someone gets into an aeroplane well outside Europe, they can transfer—at Schiphol in Amsterdam, for example—on to a different flight and documents from there may not be required by the Minister. That is exactly the point at which documents are likely to be destroyed by someone who has the intention of doing so. Can the copies of the documents not travel in the aircraft with the passengers to whom they refer, and be handed by the captain of the aircraft—the representative of the carrier—to the immigration authorities in the country to which those people are travelling? If they are transferring, the documents will have to follow them through the airport on to a different flight. I appreciate that that will inconvenience them, but it is considerably less inconvenience than the massive inconvenience that uncontrolled, illegal immigration creates for the 
 citizens of this country. It is far less inconvenient, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart said, than other procedures to which people may be subjected. 
 I would like the Minister to think about other vessels besides aircraft. Although we have a pretty good record of which commercial aircraft are coming into and out of the airports of this country, there is far less control—the Minister may be able to correct me on this—of commercial shipping. Equivalent procedures could be put in place for commercial shipping. The important issue is that the master of the vessel should remain responsible, as one of my later new clauses suggests, for all those who have come into the country until those people clear immigration. He got them on to the vessel; he must get them off and into the hands of the proper authorities in this country with appropriate documentation. If he cannot supply appropriate documentation, he can take them home with him. It really is as simple as that. 
 If the shareholders in some of the world's major airlines feel that the provisions will unduly diminish their profits, perhaps they will choose not to fly to particular destinations. I do not have a great deal of sympathy with the carriers on that issue, I must say. I hope that the Minister will assure me that the procedure will be most robust and applied as widely as is conceivably necessary to eliminate the mischief that the new clause is designed to eliminate.

Beverley Hughes: I am grateful for the points that hon. Members on both sides have made, because they demonstrate many of the issues of detail that the voluntary trials that we will conduct with the carriers will try to work out. There are technical decisions to be made and solutions to be found. That is precisely what the trials are about.
 Let me try to deal with the issues that hon. Members asked me about. Questions asked during consultation concerned the period of time that the carriers were given to provide information to help us with the regulatory impact assessment and their views about costs. I agree that six working days was a difficult time scale, but it was the one that we were working in. That is not to say that either for that period or for the longer period of consultation on the measure itself we stop talking to the carriers. 
 We have not stopped talking to them now. Discussions are continuing and they are detailed and we are grateful to the carriers for showing their willingness to participate in discussions. Leaving aside that they have some understandable queries and concerns, I think that they have come to the table in a spirit of trying to find a solution, and I welcome that. I say on the record that that is the way in which we continue to have discussions with the carriers. I have already said twice that if we can get a voluntary system to work effectively and in the interests of the carriers, that is what we will do. We do not want to use the statutory power and I hope that we do not do so. 
 The regulatory impact assessment was raised. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Woking was implying that one had not been done or that the one 
 that has been done was not adequate. There has been an initial regulatory impact assessment. By its very nature, that cannot be as robust as we would like it to be at the moment, because the issues of cost and the technical options for copying need to develop through trials. Therefore, we have had to depend, in part, on carriers' own estimates of some of the cost to them, as well as on our estimates of the cost of various options. 
 It is the photocopying option that we have put in the regulatory impact assessment at this stage. That is partly because that will probably turn out to be the most expensive method. It may be that other methods will turn out to be faster and cheaper. 
 In response to another point raised by the hon. Member for Woking, photocopying does have one advantage. It is not the only method that has this advantage, but it does have the advantage of including a photograph. It seems to me that if we are going to require copies of documents to be taken, we need an image on the copy of what the person looks like, for obvious reasons. 
 The piloting will look at all those options. A number of people, including the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), asked whether passengers themselves could copy documents. I think that would be difficult. It is certainly difficult if we have to rely on the statutory power. It is one thing to require carriers which already have a statutory duty to copy documents to ensure that passengers arrive with adequate documentation. It is quite another form of statutory requirement on large numbers of the travelling public to require them, in a foreign country, where we do not have extra-territorial jurisdiction, to copy documents, with us able to prosecute them if they do not turn up at the check-in desk with a copy. Hon. Members can, with a little thought, understand that there are all sorts of problems would accompany a decision to require passengers to copy documents. 
 Whether copying regardless of the consent of passengers would be a breach of the law in any country is an issue. We have done some research and we do not think that in any of the countries where we are likely to want this to happen it would be a problem. In response to hon. Members' questions, that is something that we would have to discuss with the nation states concerned to ensure that we institute legislation that is as compatible as possible with theirs. 
 The hon. Member for Woking raised the issue of costs, which is a concern to carriers. The DEFRA analogy is invalid, however. Carriers in the situation under discussion have a statutory duty to ensure that travellers on their airlines and ships are properly documented. It is important because our ability to control immigration would be otherwise seriously impeded. The other problem with the DEFRA analogy is that the tracking equipment on shipping vessels is a blanket, mandatory requirement. Without such equipment, those vessels cannot sail or fish. 
 We are discussing tracking equipment, the introduction of which is not blanket but targeted and of potential benefit to airlines. Some carriers use it 
 because with such robust procedures they can obtain approved gateway status. In the event of somebody destroying their documents, if the carrier can show that it has copied them, it is protected from the imposition of carrier-liability charges. Carriers that consider such issues are already copying documents. The issue of costs is incomparable to the DEFRA example, but the balancing of cost and benefit will be examined in the trials. 
 The hon. Member for Winchester discussed balance. I agree with his points, but when drawing up a balance sheet one must include all interests. Travellers to the UK and UK citizens have an interest in not being impeded from moving through airports as freely as possible. At the same time, they have an interest in ensuring that our immigration control is not breached, and that large numbers of people are not detained and supported in the UK because we cannot remove them after they have claimed asylum. The costs involved are not conducive to the interests of UK citizens. We must have a broad vision of where the balance lies. 
 The pilot schemes will start as soon as possible, but locations have not been confirmed because we must discuss the matter with the other nation states. I provided this information at an earlier debate: some 60 per cent. of claims—70 per cent. if we consider claims plus dependants—arrive at airports without documents, when they clearly must have boarded the planes with documents. That is a very significant part of the picture.

Mark Oaten: Is that about 10,000 individuals? I seem to recall that figure.

Beverley Hughes: I seem to recall it, too. Unfortunately my detailed questions and answers on yellow sheets in the back of my file have disappeared. When we did a rough calculation on clause 2, I believe we reached a figure of that order, but I will confirm it later. Holland has a similar scheme and we will talk to those concerned about how it operates.
 The UK is in a unique geographical position. Unlike most other European countries, we do not have land borders, so the potential for people to travel by air and sea to the UK to claim asylum without documents is much greater. 
 Several Members have asked whether copying documents on the plane would be possible. The carriers are not very keen on it. It is technically difficult and it does not deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Woking because it would still be possible to get rid of the documents between the gate and the plane. 
 With tracking and linking people to a flight, we do not envisage having to fax back to carriers in another country. If a carrier were asked to copy documents on a certain flight, the documents would then come, in a secure way, on the plane. The hon. Member for Upminster asked about security, an important question. She will be pleased to know that the documents will be handed over to the Home Office, which will be responsible for retaining them for 
 checking and then destroying them as soon as possible. Therefore, the systems in place would put the onus on us. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart asked about consultation and also about clause 2. As I have made clear, we want the full consultation and excellent participation that we have had so far with the carriers to continue, and I am sure that it will. 
 As regards clause 2, turning up at a UK airport without a document and being liable for the offence under clause 2 would not provide a person with a defence—possibly the opposite—if a copy of the document proved that he or she had a document when they got on the plane. I envisage that it would depend entirely on whether the person had ''a reasonable excuse'', to remind ourselves of the terminology in the clause, for not having a document in the UK when clearly there was one. The evidence would be pretty damning if there were also a copy.

Humfrey Malins: The Minister may be coming to this point, but I wonder whether she has had a chance in the past couple of weeks to get hold of and look at the letter that I am told the Foreign Secretary wrote to the United States about their similar proposals, in which I understand he said, although I may be wrong, that they would cause severe disruption and be very difficult from our point of view. Has there been liaison on that between the Home Office and the Foreign Office?

Beverley Hughes: There has been liaison, but our issue with the US about the termination of their waiver scheme, in so far as there is an issue, is not about the principle but about the timescale in which it is being imposed. Although we shall include a biometric identifier in all new passports—we are piloting it now—we do not envisage being able to do that universally until mid-2005, whereas the date for the start of the cessation of the waiver scheme that normally applies to UK citizens is 26 October this year. Therefore, there would be a window of six to eight months in which we would not be able to comply. We are talking to the United States about being more flexible about the timescale, although not about the principle. We agree with the principle, and I think that many other countries will go down that road.
 The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) asked whether we could be more robust. In the medium term we can and will be more robust. We are instituting something called the e-borders proposal, which will enable us to set up, through the authority-to-carry scheme, an advance passenger information scheme—the automatic transmission of passenger information in real time. However, that can only be done electronically and it will take some time to put the electronic infrastructure in place. The ID card will also help UK citizens, when we have the ability to read cards quickly. 
 In the medium to longer term, all countries are going down that route, with authority to carry and advance passenger information, but the electronic infrastructure is necessary. The provision will enable us, in a more low-tech manual way, to have advance 
 passenger information, or at least the information accompanying passengers as they fly. However the hon. Gentleman is right: the longer-term solution is to be able to do that electronically. Then it can be done all the time for all routes in a blanket way without the impact on carriers that it would have if we sought advance passenger transmission for all journeys. 
 Hon. Members rightly had a long list of questions. If I have not covered any points, I hope that they will allow me to pick them up later and write to them. I hope that I have reassured them on some of the detail. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7 - Interpretation of Refugee Convention

'(1) In Article 31 of the Refugee Convention— 
 ''directly'' means without transit through or landfall (whether by land, sea or air) in a safe country. 
 (2) In subsection (1)— 
 ''the Refugee Convention'' means the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and its protocol; 
 ''safe country'' include the countries listed in paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to this Act and such other countries as the Secretary of State may designate.'.—[Mr. Turner.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The new clause deals with something that I confess I did not know was the case until my hon. Friend the Member for Woking mentioned it from the Front Bench during one of our earlier sittings. The word ''directly'' in the refugee convention does not mean what most people would assume it means. Article 31 refers to 
''refugees . . . coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened''. 
It seems to me that the natural meaning of ''directly'' is ''without making landfall in another place''. Yet, for some reason—I have not checked why—the courts have determined that ''directly'' does not have what most of us would regard as its natural meaning, but that the meaning it carries allows asylum claimants to go through one or more countries, which may be safe countries, on their way to this country. The purpose of the new clause is to find out why the Government think that is an acceptable interpretation of the word ''directly'' in the context of article 31. 
 If I had done my homework a little earlier, we would be talking about the rest of the convention as well. Article 31 refers only to the application of penalties to people who have not arrived directly, and I suspect that what is far more important in the eyes of most of our constituents is eligibility for asylum when people have not arrived directly, but have come indirectly through a safe country such as France. The Minister might tell me that the usual meaning of ''directly'' 
 applies in the case of eligibility for asylum but simply does not apply in the case of article 31. However, the new clause relates to article 31. 
 Obviously, to make the new clause stand up, I have had to give a definition of a safe country. It may not be perfect, but the purpose of the new clause is to probe the Minister's and the Government's thinking. If the Minister finds the existing definition unacceptable, why have the Government not sought to redefine ''directly'' in a way that most of us would find acceptable? If the Minister finds the definition acceptable, perhaps she could explain why the Government think it is acceptable that people who have left a country where they have a justifiable fear of persecution should come through a country such as Italy, France or Belgium and not claim asylum there, but then be eligible for asylum in this country, or be ineligible for penalties for arriving without documentation, or with false documentation.

Beverley Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman said, the new clause defines ''directly'' for the purposes of article 31 of the 1951 refugee convention as meaning
''without transit through or landfall . . . in'' 
a country listed in paragraph 2 of schedule 3, or any other country that the Secretary of State may designate. That would mean that refugees who travelled to the UK through one of those countries could, when applicable, be prosecuted, or penalised, for illegal entry into or presence in the UK, without having the option of a defence under article 31. It would not affect the assessment of the asylum claim, but it would mean that a prosecution could be brought even if someone was given refugee status, and it would mean that they would not have a defence if they had travelled through a country in which they could have claimed asylum. 
 I do not think that there is that much between us. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, in the past, article 31 has been interpreted very widely by the courts, and that those refugees who have had the opportunity to claim asylum in a safe country en route to the UK should do so, and should not be able to rely on the convention as a defence for entering the UK illegally. We dealt with this matter in section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, where we defined defences based on article 31 of the convention for the purposes of UK legislation. Subsection (2) provides that: 
 ''If . . . the refugee stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom [the defence] in subsection (1) applies only if he shows that he could not reasonably be expected to be given protection under the Refugee Convention in that other country.'' 
I think that this approach to the definition is very similar to that proposed by the hon. Gentleman in his new clause. As far as I can see, his definition differs slightly from ours, in not providing the ''reasonable excuse'' defence for not seeking protection in a third country and in providing a definition for a ''safe third country''. There might be some situations in which that defence is appropriate—for instance, as we have seen with tragic results, if someone is locked in the 
 back of a lorry and transits another country, but literally cannot physically get out, that may be a reasonable excuse that we should provide for. I think that is the only sliver of difference between our definitions. I hope he will agree that the broad thrust is much the same, namely that a person can hope to benefit from the protection of article 31 only if they did not pass up an opportunity to apply in another country which they reached before arriving in the UK. I hope he will be assured that the definition that we already have in legislation is sufficient for his concerns to be met and that he will withdraw the amendment.

Edward Garnier: I am most grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene in her thoughtful response to my hon. Friend's contribution. I have listened to the entirety of this debate. Will the Minister urge her officials, or the Government as a whole, to publicise more widely what she has just said about the Government's attitude to transit asylum seekers? I think many of us as constituency MPs will be faced with inquiries from our constituents as to why a person who has travelled from, let us say, the Balkans, all the way through the European Union, has been allowed to be treated as an asylum seeker in this country. I hope that the Government will make their attitude towards this problem more widely known, because it causes much puzzlement among ordinary folk when they see the results of these arrivals.

Beverley Hughes: There are two points here. There is a great deal of work going on—not only by IND, but by parts of our security services which work with us on intelligence-gathering in operations outside the UK—trying to ensure that people in source countries understand those issues and the risks, the exploitation to which they become prey by paying people to transverse them across the continent. It might be that we can do more in that regard, but we are trying to include getting those messages across as part of our overall strategy on this.
 I must clarify one point. As I think I made clear to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, the provisions in article 31 of the refugee convention do not allow a country to decline to consider a claim. Rather, it tells the member state concerned that should somebody be liable to prosecution because they have not claimed asylum, that person will not have a defence under article 31 if they have not come directly and not availed themselves of the opportunity, if they could do so, to claim in another country. It is about the offence, and penalising people; it is not about not considering somebody's claim. That is why it would technically be possible to prosecute somebody we have decided is a refugee, although many countries may not want to do that. Article 31 is about that person's defence, which they may or may not have, depending on how they got to the state concerned.

Andrew Turner: I thank the Minister for her explanation, and I am minded to withdraw the motion, but will she first address two points? First, I interpret her explanation to mean that article 31 requires that once someone is in the UK and has made a claim for
 asylum, that claim must be assessed however hopeless it may be. That is not a good reason why they should not be prosecuted for arriving in the country without adequate documentation if they have come from France, for example. I cannot conceive that the authorities could successfully prosecute someone who had been given asylum.
 The second point builds on that made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), which is that people simply do not believe that the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as the Minister explained them, are being operated. If they were, I would be right in saying that there were no genuine asylum seekers at Sangatte, but many of those people were allowed into this country. Such actions give entirely the wrong signals to our constituents and the people who want to hang around in the Pas de Calais until they eventually find their way into this country by Eurostar or some other means. It cannot be beyond the Government's capacity to be clear and consistent in the application of those laws.

Beverley Hughes: I will try to deal with those two points. First, I know that the hon. Gentleman understands that article 31 of the convention concerns a much narrower point than the assessment of asylum claims. It states:
 ''The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees . . . coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened''. 
We have already debated this issue. The hon. Gentleman wants to tighten the definition of ''directly'', but the current definition is adequate. That narrow point is not relevant to the assessment of the asylum claim. 
 Secondly, the hon. Gentleman talked about offences. There are several offences on our statute books to which the defence provided for under article 31 could apply. I do not have details of all the cases, but I think I included some figures in the tables at the back of the letter to the two Chairmen of the Committee. For example, that defence could be used in all of the following offences: seeking leave to enter or remain; avoidance or postponement; and deception. In 2002, there were proceedings against 241 people, 173 of whom were convicted. Presumably, either some of those people had an effective defence or there was not sufficient evidence. There are similar figures in the table for other offences to which that defence would apply. Clearly, the provisions are being used and people are being charged with offences, but the article 31 defence may have come into play in some of those cases. 
 If the hon. Gentleman means that we need to publicise more broadly the fact that we operate our laws effectively, I will accept that point and see what more we can do. The figures show that we are not being dilatory in prosecuting people when we can. However, I take his point that it may be an additional deterrent to tell people that. I think that that is his main point. I ask him to withdraw the motion.

Andrew Turner: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8 - Detention by Secretary of State

'(1) Section 62 of the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum Act 2002 (c.41) (detention by the Secretary of State) shall be amended as follows.
 (2) In subsection (1) insert the words ''over the age of eighteen'' after the word ''person'' in the first line.
 (3) After subsection (3) insert—
''(3A) A provision of Schedule 2 to that Act about a person who is detained or liable to detention under that Schedule shall only apply to a person over the age of eighteen.
 (3B) Nothing in Schedule 2 to that Act or in this section shall permit the detention of a person if the result of that detention would be the detention of a person under the age of eighteen.''.'.—[Mr. Gerrard.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Neil Gerrard: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:New clause 13—Detention of under-18s— 
 'In section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 after subsection (3), insert— 
 ''(3A) Nothing in this section, or in Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (c.77) shall permit— 
 (a) the detention of a person under the age of 18 for more than 7 days, or, in exceptional circumstances, 10 days, or 
 (b) the detention of a person if the result of that detention would be the detention of a person under the age of eighteen for a period of more than 7 days, or, in exceptional circumstances, 10 days.''.'.

Neil Gerrard: New clause 8, which stands in my name and that of the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing), and new clause 13, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Winchester, address the question of the detention of children. There are some differences between the two clauses. I shall address my remarks mainly to new clause 8, but the main difference is whether detention should be banned completely or whether there should be time limits. Common to both of the new clauses is the issue of how and when children should or should not be detained.
 Much concern has been expressed about the detention of children. Her Majesty's inspector of prisons reported on conditions in immigration detention centres and raised some significant concerns about the detention of children in those centres. In response to that, the Government made some announcements in December, to which I will return later. 
 I hope we all agree that detention facilities would never be the best environment for children. No one would want to see children in detention facilities. Detention facilities would have a negative impact on children; I suspect we all agree with that. However, disagreements arise over whether there are 
 circumstances in which it would be reasonable and in which there would be no option other than to hold children in detention. 
 When children are detained, they are usually detained with one or sometimes both their parents. It is quite difficult to know the exact numbers or the lengths of time involved. Unfortunately, whenever one gets statistics on the detention of children—or on detention in general, although this is particularly the case when it comes to children—it is only possible to get snapshots and statistics that say how many children were in detention on a particular day. A figure of 81 children in detention was given in November last year; different figures are quoted at different times. It is extremely difficult to get any sort of reliable information about how long children are detained. We have all seen anecdotal evidence about individual cases, which sometimes involve quite long periods of detention. It is difficult to track what happens. 
 For some time, it was official policy that families would not be detained for more than a few days and that that detention would be specifically in the period before removal. However, the 2002 White Paper said that families could be detained for longer periods if necessary. In 1999, there was the possibility of an automatic bail hearing, which would have applied to families with children. It was never put into practice and was removed from the law by the 2002 Act. 
 The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees clearly states that refugee children should not be detained. That is the view of many of the groups that work with asylum seekers and refugees.

Tom Harris: We need to be clear about the category of people we are discussing. Does my hon. Friend agree that, certainly so far as the Dungavel detention centre in Scotland in concerned, it is neither asylum seekers nor refugees who are kept there, but those whose applications have failed and whose legal status is therefore that of illegal immigrants and not refugees?

Neil Gerrard: I am not familiar with every case at Dungavel. I certainly know that in some of the other facilities, such as Oakington, families have been detained who have not had their asylum claims considered and decided. Therefore, I do not think it is possible to argue that what my hon. Friend said would be true across the detention estate.

Annabelle Ewing: My understanding is that children of asylum seekers have been detained in Dungavel. As the Minister mentioned, one of the apparent grounds for detaining asylum-seeker families in Dungavel is if identity cannot be established.

Neil Gerrard: I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. I am aware of families in Oakington whose cases have not been decided.
 Usually, the question of the detention of the parent will be addressed first and the question of the detention of the child will follow on from that, on the presumption that it is best for them to remain with their parents. I am unsure whether parents would 
 always agree that it would be best if their children were to end up in detention. The prisons inspectorate recommended that detention should be exceptional and only for very short periods, and that there should be more reliable information from immigration authorities about detention. 
 Some of the organisations that work with asylum-seeker families have always maintained that detention has not been the exceptional course, but that it has been used in cases where families have not absconded but have maintained contact with the immigration authorities and where people who have been detained have then been released and obtained asylum status. Therefore, they cannot only have been present at the last minute before they were removed. 
 In December, the Home Office announced measures designed to respond to some of the criticisms about the detention of children. One suggestion was that the express authority of Ministers would be required to maintain detention after 28 days, but that is not the same as a few days, which is what the prisons inspectorate proposed should be the limit. There is a question as to what access a detained family ought to have to legal representation so that they can challenge their detention. 
 I can think of very few cases where I could see a justification for detaining children. I hope everyone agrees that that should be a last resort, but I am not convinced that the evidence shows that to have been the case. There are people in detention whose asylum claims have not been considered: people with children have been detained for a long period rather than only for a few days. We ought to tighten the rules on the detention of children. 
 That, essentially, is the purpose of the new clauses. Children should not be in detention. It is not appropriate for a child who has not committed any offence to be held in detention because of the actions of their parents.

Tom Harris: Without the text of the original Immigration, Nationality and Asylum Act 2002 before me, I am unsure how the new clause fits in. Would it prohibit the detention of under-18-year-olds in all cases? I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that there may be some occasions when parents and children would prefer to be kept together in detention rather than be split up in the community. He can correct me if I am wrong—which I might well be—but would not the new clause prohibit the detention of children in all cases, even when the families would prefer to stay together?

Neil Gerrard: That would certainly be the effect of new clause 8. New clause 13 would be slightly different in that it would set a maximum period of time. I can understand the argument about my amendment being too extreme a provision, but my purpose in tabling it is to raise the issue of detention and argue that it is not being used in the limited way in which everyone believes it ought to be used. We must tighten up the criteria that are used before any child ends up in detention.

Annabelle Ewing: I support new clause 8. As a fail-safe, I have sympathy with new clause 13, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Winchester.
 As the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) says, new clause 8 would remove the power in section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to detain children under 18 years in what are now called removal centres. That would, as he also rightly said, be in accordance with the basic principles of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. 
 Notwithstanding the fact that the Bill, which we have been discussing for many hours, will introduce major and far-reaching changes to the asylum and immigration system, the UK Government have not seen fit to directly address the considerable disquiet about the detention of children, as provided for in the Bill. That is a missed opportunity. 
 The Minister will be aware that there has been a massive campaign in Scotland on the detention of children at Dungavel removal centre. She will also be aware that there is widespread consensus in civic Scotland that this practice is morally wrong. That consensus includes most of the major Churches in Scotland, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, charities working directly with children, and even Labour-run Glasgow city council, which has expressed extreme disquiet about this practice. Some political parties, including my own Scottish National party, are part of that consensus, but not all.

Tom Harris: The hon. Lady has rightly and accurately listed a number of organisations that are opposed to this measure. Does she believe that those opinions from civic Scotland represent a particular percentage of the electorate? Will she say what percentage of the electorate opposes this measure?

Annabelle Ewing: No one knows scientifically, because there has not been a referendum on the subject. I suggest, however, that given the nature and widespread involvement of all the bodies that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, he can safely assume that there is a feeling, which is widely held throughout Scotland, that it is wrong to detain innocent children in what is, in effect, a prison at Dungavel. Dungavel shares the key characteristic of a prison, which is that people are not free to leave.

Beverley Hughes: Is the hon. Lady aware of the YouGov poll conducted towards the end of last year, which showed that a significant majority of the people of Scotland who took part in that poll supported the use of detention where it was necessary, including for families? Does she agree that some of the language that has been used by her party and others—including some people who have not visited Dungavel—is erroneous, inaccurate and damaging in describing it as a prison? She may want to enlighten the Committee as to whether she has been inside Dungavel.

Annabelle Ewing: First, I should have thought the Minister would be aware that I visited Dungavel some time ago, perhaps with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart. Secondly, what can I say about YouGov
 polls? Perhaps I could point her to the poll carried out by The Herald newspaper, based in Glasgow, which showed that 80 per cent. of the people who responded were very unhappy about the practice of locking up innocent children.
 Thirdly, as I said to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, we should call a spade a spade. If one is not free to leave an institution, that institution is a prison in anybody's book.

Tom Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She is showing a lot of consideration for those wanting to make interventions. The year before last, she and I were part of a parliamentary delegation to Dungavel. That day—she can correct me if I am wrong—she expressed complete satisfaction with the facilities there. She told staff members that she was surprised at the high standard of facilities. Does she still hold that view?

Annabelle Ewing: I said to the staff that suggestions that they were not doing the job that they were tasked to do were incorrect. They were doing the job. The key issue is whether the job description fits the bill, as far as the detention of innocent children is concerned. Unlike every other child in Scotland, those children are excluded from mainstream education. I made that point clearly to the staff at Dungavel, including the director. I am always happy to take interventions, from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart in particular.
 To return to the key points, I think that there has been a missed opportunity, because we have seen nothing in the Bill that would start to address the disquiet that has been expressed in very temperate language by my party, by the churches in Scotland and by the leader of the STUC in Scotland, Mr. Bill Spiers. I think it likely that the significant campaign in Scotland has led, at least in part, to the ministerial climbdown to which the hon. Member for Walthamstow referred; the Minister's announcement on 16 December last year that children in places such as Dungavel would not be detained for longer than 28 days without being subject to a ministerial review. That is welcome as far as it goes, but as I said on Second Reading, 28 days for a child in a place such as Dungavel is 28 days too long. Moreover, there appears to be nothing in that December ministerial statement that would prevent children from being held for longer periods and being subject to a further review 28 days after the first one. That is regrettable and does not accord with the basic principles of the UN convention and of a decent society. 
 Finally, I turn to the key issue of the alternatives. Several alternatives have been suggested to the detention of families with children. One is local reporting, which should be explored further. Another proposed recently, also at the initiative of the churches in Scotland, is the Refuge Scotland project, initially put forward by the Church of Scotland, but supported by the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church and various children's charities in Scotland. That would allow families with children to stay in a hostel; in the 
 community, and not within a barbed-wire fence. The children would be allowed to attend local schools. In Glasgow, it has been proved that the attendance of asylum-seeker children is always an asset and never a disadvantage to a school. That proposal was very innovative, and I am not sure whether the Home Office has responded to the Church of Scotland and others about its views on the proposal, which has counterparts in other countries. 
 The Minister may be aware that Belgium, for example, runs an open hostel system. The children of asylum seekers attend local schools. When the right hon. Lady replies, I urge her to deal specifically with the helpful and constructive proposals that have been put forward as alternatives to detention. Why was the 28-day ministerial review not included in the Bill? Perhaps the right hon. Lady is planning to come forward on Report with an amendment along those lines. 
Beverley Hughes indicated dissent.

Annabelle Ewing: That is a pity because, as we have seen, the more clarity in the Bill, the better it will be for all concerned. The practice of detaining children in what are, in effect, prisons is wrong, and it should be recognised as such. The Minister has moved a little, but not nearly enough. I assure her that my party will continue to campaign vigorously on the issue throughout civic Scotland, because it is not acceptable to us in Scotland that such action is being taken in our name.

Mark Oaten: Although I prefer my new clause 13, I support the principle of new clause 8 and the arguments put forward by the hon. Members for Walthamstow and for Perth. There is a subtle difference between the provisions. Although we are coming from the same perspective of wanting to probe the Government about their intentions of detaining children, we want them to recognise that there could be circumstances under which we may want to keep the family together. New clause 8 fails, because it would make that impossible.
 Our measures in new clause 13 recognise those circumstances under which we would want to keep children with the family, but we argue that controls and time limits are put in place, such as periods of between seven and 10 days, seven days being the maximum time unless there are exceptional circumstances, when the period would be extended to 10 days. That proposal is considerably different from the period of 28 days to which reference has been made. 
 I agree with the hon. Member for Perth that the ministerial statement that we heard before Christmas, in which it was said that there will be a ''ministerial lock'' in relation to a period of a month, was not good enough. Will the Minister reconsider the 28-day period and make it one of seven days? It is important that, if a provision has the grand title of a ''ministerial lock'' attached to it, the least that we can do is to have that so-called lock added to the Bill, so that we absolutely 
 understand the Government's intention. The Bill allows for exceptions to be made, but I would be much happier if it referred to a period of seven days rather than a 28-day period. We should have a time scale under the Bill, not just a ministerial promise. 
 Will the Minister give us an assessment of the number of children being held at present? In answer to a parliamentary question in April 2003, the number of children being held was 56. Can she update the Committee on the latest figures? I hope that she accepts the argument advanced by the Scottish nationalists that there are good practices in other parts of mainland Europe. Can we not learn from the way in which children are held in those circumstances, where there is a combination of an ability to keep a family together with the need to have a form of detention in the period just before removal?

Beverley Hughes: First, I understand and share the starting point for many members of the Committee that the issue is serious. Of course the detention of UK children with their parents and on their own is not without precedent, but the detention of a child in any circumstances is serious. When that child is not the subject himself of concern—either because he has committed offences or is for some other reason at risk—his detention is perhaps even more serious.
 I come to this in very much the same spirit as other hon. Friends and hon. Members, but I also feel that members of the Committee have to open their minds to the reality of some of the dilemmas we face; real dilemmas involving individual families in terms of past behaviour and the risk presented in immigration terms by their parents. I do not believe that a blanket inability ever to detain an adult where they have a child attached is the right way forward; nor, equally, while there is tremendous pressure in the system to keep both the numbers down and the length of stay down, is the imposition of what would be inevitably arbitrary but well-meaning time limits. These, in themselves, would create the kind of perverse incentive that we want to avoid. I will get to that point in a moment. 
 New clause 8 would seek to prevent the detention of children and young persons under 18 under any circumstances. New clause 13 would, for the first time, set a statutory time limit on the detention of children and young persons under 18. To clarify, our policy at present is that detention may be appropriate for people when the identity and basis of claim needs to be established; for people who are unlikely to comply with the conditions of temporary admission or release; and to effect removal. 
 In addition, where a person's asylum claim appears to be capable of being decided quickly, they may be detained as part of a fast-track process. For the vast majority of people detained, that is after a decision on a claim has been made and been refused. They are not usually children of refugees or even children of potential refugees, although some people in the fast-track process might fall into that category. However, largely because they are in the fast-track process, they are, by definition, very unlikely to have a positive decision on their asylum claim. We are not talking 
 about people who have had or are likely to have a positive decision on their asylum claim. These are people whom we would be seeking to remove. 
 The policy on the use of detention applies both to families, including those with minor children, and to single adults, and all decisions are taken on the basis of the individual circumstances. I should like to raise three main points. First, it is sometimes necessary to detain a family with children because of the risk to immigration controls that that family presents and because of the dilemma presented. I have been seeing these cases in detail for some time, but now I receive weekly reports on more cases coming up to the 28-day mark. There are very few; none the less, these are the most difficult cases. 
 An example of one case is a mother who arrived in the UK late in 2000. She was refused leave to enter but granted temporary admission in order to return home. She absconded. She had a baby in late 2002, but she disappeared. She was next encountered when she was arrested late last year, 2003, for serious drug offences. Her son was then taken into care because she had been arrested. She applied for asylum after she had been arrested. That was the first asylum claim. She and her son were to be removed on an emergency travel document, issued by their own authority, but the issue of that document has been delayed because when she registered her son's name with an alias. Therefore, we are now in difficulties with her country of origin about her identity and whether she is a national of that country. Detention is necessary while her identity is established and we try to remove her to her country of origin. There is no prospect of a voluntary departure and there is a high risk that she will abscond again. 
 Hers is not untypical of the difficult cases that we are discussing. There are only two alternatives to detention. The first is to release her and her child together, in which case she will certainly abscond, go to ground, and disappear: we will not be able to trace her, and she, like others, will not comply with reporting procedures. The second is to take the baby back into care: he is very young and has hardly been with his mother, so if we take him into care until we can release her and put them on a plane together, they will not know each other. Who can say that that is in the interests of the child? I cannot. In such cases, it is in the interests of children that we keep them with their parent or parents. We do not make up such cases; this is the reality that the immigration department has to deal with in the small number of difficult cases in which we have to have the option of detention. 
 We are talking about a small minority of cases, none the less. I shall come to the statistics in a moment. The hon. Member for Perth said that there are other options and asks why we cannot have reporting. I do not know where she thinks that the vast majority of families who never go into detention are. In fact, they are living in the community, their children are in school, they comply with reporting and when we are in a position to remove them, they are removed. If they do go into detention, it is for one or two nights in order to get them on to a plane. Reporting is used wherever 
 we can use it. It is what we want to do, because it makes economic sense and is in the interests of the family. However, some families will not comply and will not go home voluntarily. For them, we have to make provision for detention.

Annabelle Ewing: I shall be interested to hear the Minister's statistics. My understanding is that not every single asylum-seeking family that is detained is detained on the basis of a perceived risk of removal. As the Minister has indicated, people are detained for a number of reasons. I should not have thought it beyond the wit of the Home Office to come up with a workable system that would allow children and their parents to live, as far as possible, a normal life in the community without being locked up in a detention centre.

Beverley Hughes: As I said, that is the experience of most families. Some families might be detained for one or two nights so that we can effect a removal. The families that we are discussing, who are in detention for longer than that, are those who pose real problems, usually relating to risk and often to refusal to co-operate with our efforts to identify them and arrange travel documents.

Tony McWalter: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful case. I have just been on the police parliamentary scheme. Among other cases, I came into contact with somebody in the situation that my right hon. Friend has described. For her, release back into the community would mean release into the hands of pimps, drug pushers and other reprehensible people who would have a profoundly negative effect on both her and her small child.

Beverley Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the example. With the best will in the world and without being negative, it is simply a fact that the behaviour and lack of co-operation, and the significant risk that is presented by some people and presented to them by those with whom they would otherwise get involved, mean that detention is necessary.
 I understand the concerns voiced my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. Statistics are difficult, but I will try to give him a picture from the end of December, then tell him the number of children in detention yesterday. I am trying to prepare a system that allows us to put disaggregated information relating to children publicly into the statistics. Those figures exist at the moment, but they are not disaggregated, which I think is necessary. 
 From our internal management information, of the 21 children in detention at the end of December, nine, in six family groups, had been detained for more than 14 days. Of those, four children, in three family groups, had been detained for more than 28 days—the case that I have just outlined is one of those. It is cases of that nature where longer detention occurs. The average period of detention for families with children who had been removed or released from detention where these serious impediments were not encountered was just over seven days. That average 
 varies quite a lot—a few months ago it was four days. The overall average, including some of the cases involving longer detention, was nine days. As of midday yesterday, a 35 children were in detention. I do not have the breakdown that I was able to give for December. 
 This may be a minor point, but I think it is important because it shows that the use of detention is very limited indeed compared with the number of families with children with whom we are working. Members may take the view that detention of any child in any circumstance is always wrong. If they do, I have to part company with them at that point, for the reasons that I have outlined. I hope they accept that a genuine effort is made, buttressed by the measures already mentioned, to use this provision as sparingly as we can, and only in cases where it is necessary.

Mark Oaten: The Minister makes a compelling case. As I said earlier, I accept that there are occasions on which it is proper to keep the family together, and it may even be that my seven-day suggestion is wrong. Will the Minister at least make clear the importance of having the ministerial lock? The review that she undertakes each month gives me comfort that she is checking and looking at these cases, but it would give me more comfort if I knew that it was a requirement for future Ministers to do the same thing.

Beverley Hughes: I will get to that point in a moment. The fixed time limits on detention provided for in the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Winchester would necessarily be arbitrary. However, the most important point is that in the type of case I outlined earlier they would provide a perverse incentive for somebody to fail to co-operate until they reached the time limit, knowing that they would then have to be released. That would be very wrong; it would encourage people not to co-operate and to stretch out the process. That would give us intolerable difficulties in trying to get co-operation from those families.
 The ministerial authorisation in respect of people coming up to 28 days in detention was one part of the package of measures that I announced. It also includes the appointment of a senior official to oversee all the families, particularly regarding case progression and the welfare of children, and report directly to me; enhanced detention review arrangements for family cases; and other measures to ensure that we have education facilities and social services links with authorities where there are removal centres in which families can be detained. 
 I do not think we need a legislative provision for the ministerial authorisation, and we will continue with it. I see cases every week, I get a full case history and I ask whatever questions I want. Although I have no concerns about the system, the need for officials to account to me for what is happening puts another pressure on the system. There are real difficulties with some cases, particularly with redocumentation, but I authorise continued detention only where the issues 
 are clear and where detention is necessary because there is no alternative. On the other hand, we have released several families in recent months as a result of such scrutiny, and I assure hon. Members that we will continue with it. 
 I do not think that I can usefully say anything more, other than that I recognise and understand hon. Members' genuine concerns. However, I hope that they now have a greater insight into the difficult issues with which some people unfortunately present us, and that they realise that we are trying to balance those issues in the best possible way. The best interests of the chid are up right up there alongside immigration issues. That is why I do not agree that being unable to detain children in any circumstances is in their best interests. In some instances, it is in their best interests, because the alternative is separation at a time when the parent needs to get to know their child again.

Annabelle Ewing: Will the Minister give way?

Beverley Hughes: No, I am about to conclude. In the light of my comments, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow will withdraw the new clause.

Neil Gerrard: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. I have no doubt that she carefully reviews the cases that are brought before her every month, but I always prefer having something in statute to relying on the good offices of individual Ministers, who may move on.
 I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's comments, and I want to think carefully about them before Report, when we may want to return to the issue in some form. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9 - Late claim for asylum: refusal of support: appeals

'In section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (late claim for asylum: refusal of support), omit subsection (10).'.—[Mr. Oaten.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Mark Oaten: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: 
 New clause 10—Asylum support: back payments— 
 'In Schedule 8 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (provision of support: regulations) after paragraph 12, insert— 
 ''13 The regulations may make provision for the back payment of a regular support payment not received by the claimant''.'. 
New clause 11—Termination of NASS support— 
 'For subsection 94(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 substitute— 
 ''(3) For the purposes of this Part, a claim for asylum is determined at the end of such period beginning— 
 (a) on the day on which the Secretary of State notifies the claimant of the associated termination of his or her support, or
 (b) if the claimant has appealed against the Secretary of State's decision, and the appeal has been disposed of, on the day on which the Secretary of State notifies the appellant of the associated termination of his or her support, as may be prescribed.''.'. 
New clause 12—Victims of domestic violence: recourse to public funds— 
 'Individuals who apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom under paragraph 289A of the Immigration Rules (Refusal of indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom as the victim of domestic violence) shall have recourse to public funds while their application is being considered.'. 
New clause 20—Late claim for asylum: refusal of support— 
 'For section 55(1) of the Nationality, Immigration & Asylum Act 2002 (c.41) there is substituted— 
 ''(1) The Secretary of State may not provide or arrange for the provision of support to a person under a provision mentioned in subsection (2) if— 
 (a) the person makes a claim for asylum which is recorded by the Secretary of State, 
 (b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person's claim for asylum is manifestly unfounded, and 
 (c) the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable after the person's arrival in the United Kingdom, 
 for more than a period of 28 days after the person is notified of the Secretary of State's decision.''.'. 
New clause 21—Benefits to failed asylum seekers— 
'(1) Save for the services listed in subsection (2), a person who is a member of a group listed in subsection (3) is ineligible to receive benefit in cash or kind at the expense wholly or partly of public funds whether nationally or locally raised. 
 (2) The services are— 
 (a) those services which are provided indiscriminately on a non-individual basis; 
 (b) treatment of infectious disease; 
 (c) treatment in response to a health emergency; 
 (d) care immediately before and after maternity; and 
 (e) such other services as the Secretary of State may by order designate. 
 (3) The groups are— 
 (a) those persons covered by section 7 of this Act; and 
 (b) in relation to any particular service or benefit, any EEA national— 
 (i) whose country does not offer a broadly equivalent level of service or benefit to a citizen of the United Kingdom in that country as is offered to a citizen of the United Kingdom in the United Kingdom; and 
 (ii) who has been resident in the United Kingdom for less than 12 months. 
 (4) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament guidelines on the interpretation of subsection (3) to which providers of services not exempted by subsection (2) shall have regard.'.

Mark Oaten: I apologise for raising several separate issues. I will detain the Committee for as little time as possible as we work through them.
 New clause 9 takes us back to the process for appealing against decisions under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Section 55 allows individuals as reasonable a period as practical to make their claims. If they do not do so within that period, support is not given. 
 When the Government first introduced section 55, they intended it to act as another deterrent—or perhaps as another carrot—to ensure that claims were made promptly. I do not think that they envisaged individuals, for all sorts of reasons, being unable to get support, but that is what the figures suggest has 
 happened. Depending on whose briefing one reads, between 7,500 and 10,000 individuals have been refused support since section 55 was introduced. I suspect that the way it kicked in slightly surprised Ministers, which is why it is important when discussing new clause 9 to consider how section 55 operates and to suggest measures to ensure that it does so more fairly. 
 There is no doubt that decisions taken under section 55 have led to serious problems and have added to this country's homelessness problem. Briefings from the Refugee Council and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux all confirm that. They have examples of cases that have come to their attention as a result of the withdrawal of that support. 
 Some cases are surprising. NACAB reported the case of a pregnant Turkish woman who came to this country in September. She did not make her case for five days, as a result of which no support was given. She ended up presenting herself to a citizens advice bureau, not having eaten for a considerable number of days and in a poor state of health, all because she had failed to make her case within the statutory period, even though she was pregnant. Such cases give rise to real concern. As things stand, the only way to appeal against that decision is to seek formal judicial review. That is a good thing, and I am glad that it is in place, but the process is complex. New clause 9 would simplify it. How do the Government envisage appeals taking place under section 55? 
 As I said, this is a complex system. It involves judicial review, and has dealt with about 1,000 cases. Interestingly, it is hard to obtain statistics, but the Minister may be able to help me. Some 90 per cent. of cases that have gone through the process appear to have been successful, and some form of benefit appears to have been handed back as a result of judicial review. That suggests that we are back to the same old arguments advanced in debates on previous clauses; namely, that initial decision making in these cases is not good. 
 Given the success rate of those cases, there must be real concern about the way in which section 55 is being implemented. That also suggests that a system should be in place with a tier of different levels of appeal through which a case passes before it goes to judicial review, and that there should be a quicker and easier way of reviewing decisions. I understood that that was the Government's intention when they introduced section 55. Comments made when the legislation was introduced certainly suggested that the belief was that there would be an ability to appeal to the asylum support adjudicators, and that that would be the mechanism used to appeal against decisions. However, that appears not to be happening. 
 In a briefing to the parliamentary Labour party in October 2002, when asked if people could appeal a decision, the Minister made it clear that they could appeal to the asylum support adjudicator, and that the appeal would be held quickly, generally within days. However, the day-to-day lessons from those operating in the field suggest that that system is not operating, 
 and that the sole ability to appeal is to go to judicial review. Given the concern about section 55, the number of individuals who have had support withdrawn under it, and the number of cases that have been successful when they have gone to judicial review, there is a real case for the Government to consider toughening the procedure and putting in place a proper system for reviewing decisions. We know that the Home Secretary made some changes by putting in place a 72-hour period, but surely 72 hours is inadequate, irrespective of whether or not there is an appeal? I hope that the Government will carefully reconsider the principle behind section 55 and the way in which appeals can be made. 
 All our new clauses are designed to ensure that the legislation is as humane as possible. New clause 10 relates to problems of poverty, and is probing. It aims to explore how the regulations operate that govern back payments under NASS support. Processing errors appear to be creating considerable difficulties on the ground, so that individuals who have not had their payments as a result of a processing error are finding it extremely difficult to obtain a back payment. A legal review of the way in which back payments are made is being conducted. For an individual who has had their support withdrawn, the fact that a legal review is taking place is pretty meaningless. In some cases, considerable sums are involved. 
 The citizens advice bureau briefing gives an example of an Ethiopian single mother with three children; in summer 2003, the family did not receive three of its weekly National Asylum Support Service payments, which came to total of £412. That was because of an unexplained processing error by NASS. The family's regular payments were quickly restored and an acknowledgment of the mistake was made. However, despite continual requests by CAB for an examination of the issue of the missing three weeks—to try to sort out the £412—there were four months of negotiations between it and NASS. Eventually, NASS officials advised that NASS did not deny responsibility for the non-delivery of the family's three missing payments, but it could not process those back payments because there was an ongoing legal review of how to manage back payments. 
 I hope that the Minister will accept that that cannot be right, and that while, perhaps, the intention of the legal review is to work out what has been going wrong, it cannot be right that somebody's back payments are withheld when everybody acknowledges that they are entitled to them—particularly in a case such as the one to which I referred. For a single mum with three children, £412 is a lot of money, and it is wrong for people to be denied money to which they are entitled. I hope that new clause 10 will lead the Minister to say a bit more about how the Government intend to resolve what, according to my briefing notes, is a bit of red tape, which is causing a problem in dealing with back payments. 
 New clause 11 addresses concerns about hardship. It would ensure that asylum seekers whose support is terminated following a final decision on their asylum claim benefits would have a fixed grace period. At the moment, a grace period is in place; it is attached to the regulations. For those whose appeals have been successful, it is recognised that support should continue because they may need it while they try to find accommodation or try to access the main welfare benefit system, which they would be entitled to following their successful appeal. For those who have failed and were part of a voluntary departure, the money would be in place to help tide them over before that departure. It would enable them to organise their affairs during that period. The grace period for those who are successful is 28 days, and there is a 21-day period of continued support where cases are finally refused. 
 I hope that one is allowed to table a probing new clause. The intention of this one is to allow the Minister to establish whether she is aware that decisions are not being taken in that way in practice. Some individuals are receiving support for less than 28 days or 21 days. There are also concerns about synchronising notification of a decision with notification of the termination of support. I would be grateful if the Minister could look into that issue. If the entitlement is available for 28 days or 21 days, that is what should happen in day-to-day practice, and it is not. 
 New clause 12 relates to what I am told is a growing problem. It would provide some form of support—public funds—for individuals who have been victims of domestic violence. I will explain what we have in mind. Some women enter the UK as a married partner of a UK citizen. They have to remain married to that partner for two years before they gain full citizenship. If the marriage breaks up within that period, the woman would lose her right to automatic citizenship because she had not been here two years. That would mean that she had to leave the country because she had no citizenship. 
 The Government have recognised that there are significant numbers of cases in which a woman needs to leave her husband—perhaps because she is the victim of domestic violence—and does not want to have to hang on for two years, because that would be totally inappropriate. They have wanted to create an exemption for victims of domestic violence, and that acknowledgment is welcome and sensible. No woman should have to stay with a man for two years to get citizenship if she is subject to domestic violence.

Andrew Turner: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I am not sure that I understand why it is necessary for a woman to remain with a man if he is subjecting her to domestic violence. She could, of course, return home.

Mark Oaten: Indeed. One possibility is that someone suffering extreme domestic violence will want to return home, but there are other scenarios, two of which spring to mind. First, if someone is subject to domestic violence, but has been here for 18 months and built up
 a set of friends, alliances and a support network, she may not necessarily want to go home. She may want to stay with her friends. She may want support; She may have been through a pretty difficult time.
 Secondly, a woman may well, quite rightly, want to take legal action against her partner, her husband. To do so, she may need to remain in the country for a time to be able to see the action through. We should not just assume that someone who wants to escape from a marriage because she is suffering domestic violence will automatically return to the country from which she came to this country. There are many circumstances in which she may want to stay. 
 That is why Liberal Democrat Members suggest in new clause 12 that for the period when such individuals have left, there should be in place a system whereby there is some form of financial support or welfare. As the Government acknowledge, they do not want to put an individual in a situation in which they have to stay in the marriage until two years have elapsed. One pressure that keeps someone in an unhappy marriage may be that there would be no financial support for them if they left and sought to stay in this country. I hope that the Minister will give some comfort on that issue, as the Government have already done, and that a system will be put in place to help individuals in those difficult situations. 
 New clauses 12, 11 and 10 are designed to probe the Government on what is going on where there seem to be breakdowns in the system. On new clause 9, I feel strongly that the way in which section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 operates is unsatisfactory, and that the Government should stick by their initial promise that there would be a speedy form of appeal on decisions, rather than the current system, which is slow, complex and requires some form of judicial review.

Neil Gerrard: I want to speak mainly to new clause 20, but I will first comment on what the hon. Member for Winchester said on new clause 12. I have a great deal of sympathy with that, because I have dealt with a number of cases in which women have come to this country as a result of marriage, but then found themselves victims of domestic violence. It is not only the scenarios that he painted that would make women in those situations quite reluctant to return to their countries of origin. In cases in which women are here as a result of a marriage that both their family and their spouse's family were involved in arranging, it may be extremely difficult for them to return to their country of origin. They may not be welcomed by their family there. I have certainly seen such a situation arise.
 I hope that the Government will consider the new clause. I know that people still have to prove their case. When women go to the Home Office and say that they have been victims of domestic violence, it is just not a matter of their saying so. The Home Office expects 
 reliable evidence and police reports to be produced to back up the case. However, we ought to consider giving some support to people in that situation while their claim is being is considered. 
 New clause 20 concerns section 55 of the 2002 Act. Ideally, that section ought to disappear completely. New clause 20 is an attempt to ameliorate some of its effects. Those of us who were involved in discussions on the 2002 Act will remember that section 55 was never discussed in Committee and was introduced late in the day, on Report, with little debate. When we asked Ministers what would happen and how the provisions would be operated, we were assured that section 55 had not been designed to deal with people who had been in the country for only a short period. Ministers gave such assurances in both Houses. On Report in the House of Lords, for instance, the then Minister talked about people who had entered the country and worked illegally, or whose entry visa had expired, but who claimed asylum, perhaps when they were arrested, as another way of staying in the country. Why should we support people who claim in those circumstances? In discussing section 55, the Home Secretary talked about the need for a reasonable period before presuming that people had entered the country for another reason and had been sustaining themselves. 
 We were also told that although there was no formal right of appeal, it would be possible for people to have their cases reconsidered. Either they could make further representations with new information or they could request that the decision be reconsidered on Human Rights Act grounds. That would imply that NASS might consider whether there were Human Rights Act grounds to support someone when making its initial decision. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary announced that people would not be refused support. However, some of us were rather surprised when he said that 72 hours would replace the previous guideline of 24 hours. A number of hon. Members who had taken an interest in the matter, including myself, could not remember any announcement of a 24-hour guideline being applied. If there was ever an announcement, I should be grateful if someone could remind me of when it was made, because I had never heard that figure until the Home Secretary mentioned it on Second Reading. 
 What other issues arise? Many people outside the House find it difficult to understand that the refusal of support has nothing whatever to do with the strength of the asylum claim. People outside this place will perhaps understand the argument that someone with a totally unfounded asylum claim should not be supported through public funds. However, they will find it difficult to understand the argument that, whether or not there is any foundation to someone's asylum claim, there will be circumstances where we absolutely refuse to support them. I have always thought it a strange effect of section 55 that it takes no account of whether the asylum claim had any strength 
 at all; Ministers stressed that when the Bill was being discussed. That effect is addressed to some extent in new clause 20, with the reference to an asylum claim being ''manifestly unfounded''. 
 The hon. Member for Winchester mentioned what is happening with statutory and judicial reviews, and the fact that the administrative court has been clogged up with applications for reviews of section 55 decisions. The judges in the administrative court have said some harsh things about how section 55 is producing a large number of cases going to court. As I said in my opening remarks, I should like section 55 to be repealed, because I do not see the justification for putting people on the streets, purely on the basis of quite arbitrary decisions about when an application was made, not whether it was justified. 
 New clause 20 would allow an amelioration of section 55 and would safeguard people whose claims had some obvious merit. It would also mean that there would be a grace period of 28 days before people were put on the streets without any support. I raise the matter along with the other amendments in this group, because this is an area that we have not got right. We are still making decisions that are leaving people destitute and on the streets, forcing claimants to live on the charity of others and putting pressure on people who have few resources themselves, just because they happen to be friends or from the same community as someone who has been denied support. It is an area that we should re-consider, perhaps on Report, if the new clauses are not acceptable to the Government.

Andrew Turner: I feel that I ought to respond in part to some of the other new clauses in this group, or at least give my view on them, before moving on to new clause 21. I have always regarded section 55 as a good section because it seeks to distinguish between those who arrive believing that they are claiming asylum, and those who decide for some reason after they arrive that they are going to claim asylum. Even with the limited number of asylum seekers in my constituency, I recognise, along with Ministers and other hon. Members, that there are some who manifestly have decided only to become asylum seekers because of some factor or experience since they arrived in the UK. It could be because they left a husband who did not measure up to expectations, or they discovered that their work permit had run out, or they never had a work permit and were about to found out, or they had committed a criminal offence for which they could be deported. There is a range of reasons with which I am sure hon. Members will be familiar. That is why I feel that section 55 is a good one. I fear new clause 12 being agreed, because new clause 15, which we shall come to later, would be an even more valuable contribution to the legislation. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow intimated, if special provision is to be made for people in special circumstances, it is essential that the Home Secretary has a means of judging—
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.